If anyone is wondering, Australia doesn't have constitutionally guaranteed rights. We adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but even so, each clause must be individually ratified by an Act of Parliament, and much of it never was. Including the bit about free speech. Basically our constitution just sets out how the government will function, but they don't even adhere to that any more.

More information: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm

So that's what's happening. We don't have protected freedom of speech, and now our government wants to silence us under the guise of protecting us.

Oh fuck - I hope Verbose keeps posting.

Like he'd care about the laws.

Write to your local and federal member of parliament.

Federal: http://www.aph.gov.au/House/members/index.htm

Victoria: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/mps1.html

New South Wales: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parl...rLAByElectorate

Queensland: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legi...ers_current.asp

Tasmania: http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/tpl/datas...ate_Federal.htm

South Australia: http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Members/Li...All+Members.htm

Western Australia: http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/web/newweb...mbers+-+Current

Northern Territory: http://www.nt.alp.org.au/people/index.php

Australian Capital Territory: http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/members/i....asp?assembly=6

I wrote to my local and federal MP, took about 10 minutes.

Not bad, I enjoy net neutrality, Canada is rather for it though our music/movie lobby group is pissing blood they hate it so much.

Wah, wah, wah.

If they government wants to pass this bill, it will get passed. All the petitions in the world aren't going to do a thing because, like you pointed out, they aren't required to. Rudd was voted in because people wanted change. This is change. Considering that Rudd's biggest block of voters are the one's he's proposing to screw over most, I applaud the move. He got in power by buying the support of Family First. This is their price. They're one of the most prominent reasons we don't have an R rating for video games. They are pretty much Australia's answer to the Religious Right.

And it doesn't matter what Rudd chooses to do, politically. All he needs is a nifty slogan. Australian voters have no memory. Neither the Liberal Party nor the Labor Party ever change or even do anything substantially different from one another. John Howard was in power for eleven years and after every single election he did something that resulted in public outrage. And yet, it wasn't until the Kevin '07 slogan that he got kicked out of power.

I can't bring myself to care about this type of thing because most of the people I see complaining voted for Rudd - and if they didn't, they pissed their vote away on a donkey vote. He was given power by a majority vote (which actually means something in our country) and now he can do what he likes with it. Come next election, he'll say the magic words again (change, Australian families) and he'll get in power again. Never mind that he hasn't kept any of his campaign promises except two: signing the Kyoto Treaty (which we were going to fulfill whether or not we signed) and apologising to the aboriginals (which didn't mean anything or cost anything).

We're getting what we deserve. I'm more than spiteful enough to enjoy this.

Edit: And besides, Free Speech is a filthy lie anyway. Nobody has free speech. All speech is restricted by social constraints and consequences and every single country in the world has legal restrictions on some degree of speech or another. Sexual harassment is "non-free speech" in America, home of Free Speech. Legally, I don't even think they're allowed to utter the phrase, "I want to kill the President of the United States of America". I doubt it's a law that gets enforced but it's still there.

Even though our country has all kinds of "evil" laws against "free speech", when have you ever felt your speech restricted? It's illegal to say things deemed as Hate Speech in the media so we don't have groups like the KKK getting television time, just like it's illegal for our media to report on the serial killers in our country. Yeah, the loss is terrible.

Of course, at some point I'm sure somebody would point out that we're becoming more like China, home of communist oppression, rather than the US, home of the free. Of course, since it's perfectly legal for both of those countries to detain citizens indefinitely without giving a reason, I don't really see the difference. For my money, our speech should be more restricted.

Every time people see any form of censorship or governmental control they scream 1984. Of course, every time they see a more socialist move they scream communist.

People wanted specific change, such as getting rid of John Howard and his cronies. Desiring one change (or many changes) does not equal "Well, you wanted any and all change, so STFU when we crap on you".


Family First is the Australian political front for the American church known as the Assemblies Of God. They came to Australia in 1937, and established the Paradise Community Church (and Paradise Ministries) in South Australia. It was established by the AOG folks from the USA. So it's more than our answer to the USA's religious right; it IS the USA's religious right.

I voted for Rudd. This crap was not at all part of Rudd's public agenda prior to election, therefore was not to be expected by me or anyone else who voted for Rudd, especially since it was actually John Howard's scheme way back. Suggesting that people deserve to be screwed over because they can't read minds or see the future is just silly.


Yeah, I'm still waiting for Rudd to keep his word. But I shouldn't be surprised. Howard failed to keep his word too. They all do. However, we did achieve one good thing: got rid of Howard.

Yes indeed.


That's a rather small comfort you're enjoying there. Rather than bitch about how everyone sucks and pretending I'm not part of "everyone", some of us are doing something about it. Writing to MPs, spreading the word, even getting involved in the political arena.

You're mistaking "free speech" with "the closest we get to free speech in our society at the moment". Those are two different things. The whole point of this thread is to recognise that we have one and not the other, and to aim for the other.


Where the heck do people get such silly ideas?

Although China's political scene is ruled primarily by the Communist Party, and the word is thrown around all over the place, China is not a Communist state, and never has been. Most folks aren't well educated and don't understand such words.


And with good reason, since 1984 was greatly about government control. Should they instead scream about the evils of junk food?

Before we see any more silliness about the inefficacy of regular folks making a fuss about such things, let me point out a simple fact.

People remaining silent has zero efficacy.

Even one person making a fuss is greater than zero.

Therefore any number of people making any fuss about it is infinitely more efficacious than people remaining silent.

Or as Napoleon Bonaparte put it "Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent."

If you expected different than what you got, you're unbelievably naive. This is how the world works. Always has and always will.

And Howard and his cronies did absolutely nothing that wasn't approved of by Rudd and his cronies. If the new guys didn't approve of what the old guys had done, they could have changed it. Perk of being the new guys, that. So for all the money that was spent trying to convince Australians that the Work Choices reforms were evil (and I have no idea how effective that marketing was) it wasn't so evil that they actually took it away. Same thing with the GST. Hell, the GST was initially a Labour idea but Australia wouldn't stand for it back in the eighties.


I'm sorry, but it couldn't be expected that a politician would lie? Or that it couldn't be expected that a change in the power group would mean a new set of indignities?


Firstly, you're assuming I have a problem with censorship. I don't. Most people don't, if they're honest and actually consider what censorship is. After all, if you don't think scenes of vicious and brutal sexual crimes should be in children's television, you're supporting censorship. Secondly, you're vastly mistaking the size of my comfort. Thanks very much to the democratic process, I will never see any facet of this country run in the manner I think is best. It's all different shades of shit from where I'm standing and while some types might - in comparison - be more tolerable, it's still shit.

So either I can be terribly dissatisfied, or terribly dissatisfied. If there's a miraculously unlikely change and a third party gets in, why, I might even be terribly dissatisfied. When my satisfaction won't change, I derive all my joy from watching other people lose theirs.

Edit: In the end, nothing I say or do can possibly have an impact. I hold an opinion in the extreme minority and voting is compulsory come election time. I find every single political party equally repugnant on a broad range of levels. It makes no difference to me who my vote goes for because none of the candidates even vaguely look like something I would willingly support even if I squint and turn them longways. So instead, I'll sneer at all of the people who feel self-righteous and important for attempting change because the founding premise of democracy, one of the core foundations of our culture, is that popularity of an opinion makes it the right one. Seeing as my views are unconventional (and then, only wholly embraced by me) I'm fundamentally wrong and worth ignoring.


I don't have a problem with the world depicted in 1984. Not how I'd do things but it is well within the band of tolerable.

Other than that, my point was that any and all signs of increased governmental control has people screaming fascism. And any and all movement in the other direction has them scream communism. As though either form of government is, in itself, good or bad.


This assumes a non-zero chance of fuss instituting or affecting change. Given recent political history in this country, I don't think that's actually a foregone conclusion. It took a decade for people to change their mind over which group of liars they wanted in office and since this pack has already broken almost all of their political promises and we know the other guys don't keep their promises, there is no particular reason to change them again.

Actually our right of free speech in America is only limited by the facts that our rights end were someone elses begins. Or so I've been told... though I don't know by who.

Feel free to explain how anyone could have expected Rudd to resurrect Howard's internet filtering scheme when it was never mentioned. Feel free to point to anyone who said "This is going to happen". Heck, feel free to demonstrate your own prescience regarding the matter. Hindsight and associated snootiness doesn't gain anyone any points.


And Howard and his cronies did absolutely nothing that wasn't approved of by Rudd and his cronies. If the new guys didn't approve of what the old guys had done, they could have changed it. Perk of being the new guys, that. So for all the money that was spent trying to convince Australians that the Work Choices reforms were evil (and I have no idea how effective that marketing was) it wasn't so evil that they actually took it away. Same thing with the GST. Hell, the GST was initially a Labour idea but Australia wouldn't stand for it back in the eighties.


The sitting government can pass legislations without any review of approval by anyone. It's called a Letters Patent act.

Second, one of the many problems with our system is that the opposing parties do indeed have the ability to completely block some things. For example, the Liberal party has been blocking the federal budget, then complaining in the press about the Labour party refusing to handle various things which would be handled by that budget.

Our government is formed on a mjority basis. The party with the majority of seats in Parliament forms the government, and that party gets to control (literally through mob rule) the business of the Parliament and the business of the government. Note that Parliament and Government are not the same. The Parliament is composed of members of all regionally victorious political parties, and the majority decides the formation of the government. The government is composed of members of only the largest or most sucessful political party, and they control (in addition to the running of Parliament) the various government departments, the cabinet, et cetera. Which means the government (not the Parliament) controls any and all laws, regulations, contracts, et cetera, handed down via heads of government departments or directly from the Prime Minister's office. Any and all implementation of Acts of Parliament is in the hands of the ministers of those departments, so how laws are actually put into effect, or if they're put into effect at all, is therefore in the hands of the sitting government. The ministers do not require Parliament approval for when, how, of if they exercise these powers.


I'm sorry, but it couldn't be expected that a politician would lie?


Again, hindsight may grant one the ability to say "Hah! I knew that would happen, you suckers!", but it doesn't actually show any capacity for foresight. Yes, politicians lie. No, that doesn't mean anyone should have expected Rudd to resurrect Howard's internet filtering scheme. No, it doesn't mean that voting for howard instead would have nixed that scheme.


Firstly, you're assuming I have a problem with censorship. I don't.


I'm not assuming that. You stated otherwise.


Most people don't, if they're honest and actually consider what censorship is.


I agree. Most people don't really want free speech.

Yes, politics is shit. But free speech, at least to some degree, allows you the right to say that, and also to pretend to some sort of "I told you so!" attitude which has no relation to reality.


Ok. That's a sad way to live.


In the end, nothing I say or do can possibly have an impact.


Silence and inaction is the sure way to guarantee that. But at least if you criticise those who do say something, you can feel better about saying nothing.

Well, good for you. I believe most folks would disagree, but you're lucky you can voice such a preference. For now.


Yes, most folks who use either term don't really know what those terms mean.


Indeed, history shows that people making a fuss about things has an effect. Not in 100% of cases, but it's definitely more than 0.

Also ends at the edge of Bush's Free Speech Zones.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Verbose, but your entire position seems to be "John Howard would definitely have done it since it was his plan in the first place, and we had no way to know Rudd was going to do it except that we know politicians are scum, therefore there was a chance Rudd might do it, therefore I laugh at the stupid people who voted for Rudd." Is that about it?

My point has never been that this event could be predicted. It's always been that people seem surprised that we're being screwed in new ways with a new government. And not just that, they're surprised that a politician who promised not to screw us is doing so.


I really do think you've mistaken the basis of my condescension. That's okay, if you have it's my error. I have a tendency to assume people can see where I'm coming from without ensuring that.

I don't care if I can say "I told you so". In fact, this forum is the only place I have done so. Personally, I simply do not care enough to listen to people in real life. I voted Howard in the last election and I did tell people that Rudd would not give them what was promised or anything good. This upcoming election I'll vote for Rudd because the other guys won't give us what was promised or anything good. The only time I won't vote for the incumbent is when there has been gross incompetence. Lying to the electorate and doing things they don't want doesn't, to my mind, constitute incompetence.


Our country has, what, twenty odd million people in it? More than half of that is concentrated in and around our state capitals. The voting block I live in has (I think) around ten to fifteen thousand people in it. So my vote is one in fifteen thousand, say.

Now, let's imagine that we're voting on our favourite colour - ridiculous, I know, but follow this through. The two front-runners are Blue and Red. Almost everybody is voting for those two because they like them or don't care too much. There's some people voting for Green and Yellow, a very few voting for Pink. Now say I want to vote for Black. I know that I'll never win that election. Hell, even if I go door to door and try and drum up support I'm a lot more likely to hear that Black isn't even a colour. My opinion is so much in the minority that it'll never be seen on television unless it's in a mocking light.

We get given two feasible options come election, with a few ways to waste our vote but show the winning party that people like what these guys stand for. I don't find a single one of them even remotely tolerable. In fact, the democratic process completely runs counter to my idea of the correct way to run a nation. I think people are idiots and that they're the last ones you should put in charge.

I express my views and, due to the lovely secondary traits of democracy, I face condescension and a very high probability of being ignored. You propose that I should get out there and try anyway because it raises my chances from zero to more than zero. Are you familiar with the concept of the infinitesimal?


It's actually closer to, "We knew how Howard was screwing us and we knew how far he'd go because we'd had him for a decade. A bunch of idiots thought it was so intolerable that they voted in a bunch of unknown pricks and now they're surprised that nobody could predict exactly how they were going to screw us."

I laughed at the people who thought the Labour Party was any different at all to the Liberal Party. I laughed at all the people who thought Rudd would keep campaign promises. I'm still laughing at all the people who show such sincere outrage that he's doing something they don't like, as though he has to try. Come next election, you'll hear "He's still better than Howard" and he'll get in. He'll keep getting in until people forget Howard and then bring in the next guy.

Oh, ok. Well, I don't think people are surprised at being screwed over by politicians. I think people are just upset that their government wants to fnck with their free speech, and would be whether it was a surprise or not.


Donkey voting is a travesty.

I don't believe our system is true democracy. We're basically stuck in a rut with two parties appealing to a deilberately polarised public, while generally catering to the same corporate interests, lobby, groups, and political allies behind closed doors. However, history shows that if things get bad enough, the people can and do have an effect. That's the point. And that infinitesimal difference made by one person has, in the past, combined with the equally small voices of others to turn the course of entire nations.


Why were those who found Howard's rule intolerable idiots? Simply because they'd had enough of constant lies, throwing us into bullshit wars, and shafting us at every opportunity? There's nothing idiotic about getting rid of such a person. Even if we all know that all other politicians are lying scumbags, that doesn't remove the need for getting rid of Howard, nor does it make idiots of those who made that happen. I think you're allowing cynicism to blind you to these basic facts.

They are different. Liberal tends to butter up the wealthiest folks and kiss America's arse more, in doing so fncking over the less wealthy. Labour spends money like it grows on trees and increases the national debt.


Well, thus far the only thing he's had trouble with is delivering the budget proposal, and that's only because Liberal keeps blocking it.


Thus far he is better than Howard. Peewee Herman would be better than Howard.

True democracy would be worse. The problem with democracy is that everybody gets a vote. Most people are idiots - a small percentage are intelligent and an equal percent are retarded. The retarded are taken in wholesale on anybody who can spin the right rhetoric and they already balance out the intelligent completely. Then, when you add in the rest of the idiots, all that matters is the line of rhetoric you can spin.

I see people constantly argue that democracy is the loftiest symbol but all I see is mob rule. It doesn't distress me, I always held my own on the playground in school, but I can't see how it's a valid system of government.


Oh, I'm not saying that people in general can't effect change. I'm not just cynical, I'm realistic. I know that sometimes it does pan out that way.

Just ask anybody who's heard my politics if they'd want to live in a society I set up. I doubt you'll find much support.


Firstly, every single state's yearly road toll is higher than the casualties our troops have sustained in Iraq. I haven't seen Rudd promise a withdrawal of cars from the road. Secondly, soldiers are payed to fight. Our military isn't compulsory so there is no reason at all for them not to be engaged in some military activity, especially when there is negligible dying on our part. For those who want to honour the troops, we've come a long way from Gallipoli. What's worse is that our troops have a lot of experience at peacekeeping - it's mostly what they're trained for. So rather than leave troops that helped keep overall casualties down in the warzone, we pull them out and leave an ally to suffer for fuck all reason.

As for the lying, any politician would be as bad after eleven years. As for shafting us, Rudd's off to a good start there as well.


Ah, so we want the people who send us into debt in charge during a recession. This makes sense. Also, Rudd is climbing up China at least as far as Howard was up America. I don't see any majorly distinguishing features.


And it's something that he had to be aware of when he made the promises. I don't think the man is such an idiot as to be unaware that his opponents will be out to shaft him. A football player doesn't promise to kick ten goals in a game and then is surprised when the other team tries to stop him.


So aside from personal dislike (which is a sentiment I can understand, I loathe Rudd which surprises me because he is a good politician) I haven't seen how he's different. I mean, sure, Howard looks like a gnome and Rudd looks like an old butch lesbian but when it comes to meaningful differences, I simply don't see it.

The biggest two things he has done are empty gestures that cost him nothing. An expedient political move but it's sickening to see the kind of credit he gets for doing nothing. The only other thing he's done, you're wanting to campaign against.

And now its Australia's religious right, don't you love the Borg? Admittedly, you have to agree with the views in order to be a part of any religious group, unlike the Borg. In a sense, you can't entirely blame the USA for your citizens agreeing with them. Its like blaming the head of PeTA for Pamela Anderson joining PeTA. Its Pamela's fault she joined, not PeTA's.


That depends, were the ten thousand carrying any weapons? I find ten thousand guns firing to be far more noisy than ten gossiping ladies.


Either that, or you make far too much sense to be correct. It must be a confusing answer in order to be right.


I agree with you there Verbose.
People have this silly hopeful notion of percentages and statistics. When its all said and done, it all comes down to binary. You've either succeeded or failed. Even if you achieve 99% of your goals and fail because of that lacking 1%, you still lost and therefore 0. From there, you're just arguing about who's 0 is larger than the other's.


Until it reaches that point, all effort up to that point will result in a 0 in the wonderful world of binary.

It has its risks, certainly. However, it also requires the people to grow up somewhat and think about things, to be adults and take control of their own destiny. So while it has dangers, it may also force humans to grow up a bit. Down side: retards. Up side: people may learn and grow up. Personally I find the possibility of that up side better than wallowing in ignorance and drudgery.

It's basically the same as the voting issue discussed before. You seem to adviocate being happy with known crap, rather than taking a chance for something better. I'm the opposite. If we know it's crap, and the alternative carries the options for more of the same but also a chance for something better, I say we go for the alternative.


Democracy is usually nothing more than an advertising campaign. A label thrown around by the arseholes who rule us, an excuse to have wars, higher taxes, et cetera. But the fact that it is wrongly used by the arseholes ruling us does not mean actual democracy is bad. It has the negatives and positives mentioned above.

As for other systems of government, I find any form of dictatorship (including monarchy) superior to what we have at the moment. People actually paid a lot less tax under the ancient Egyptian pharoahs (20%), and under the monarchies of medieval Europe (15-20%). Conscription existed then as it does now, so we can remove that as a factor. The rich and poor were divided then as now also. Sure, our technology has improved, but as today's dictatorships show us, we can have high technology in any form of government. Cuba has some of the best medical training around.

I'm not concerned merely with Australia's casualties. All people are the same to me when it comes to unjust killing. We particicpated in killing a huge number of innocent civilians, due to a huge load of lies. Now if it was in defence, or necessary for some other reason, maybe I'd be ok with it. But I object to people losing their lives over bullshit.


There's more to it than money. Such as morality. Simply being handed some money isn't good enough reason to go killing people. UNless, of course, you're an assassin.

They shouldn't even be an ally until they can act responsibly and stop having wars for bullshit reasons. As it is, we are suffering for fnck all reason because of their bullshit. Why is it ok for them to do it to us, and not for us to do it to them?


First, apparently very few people in governments saw this crash coming. Second, it's the result of many years of bad policy by the other guys. Third, China seems to be handling it quite well, and sticking with China will be good for our economy, and China hasn't been attacking other countries every few years since WW2.

So first it was that Rudd failed, which is his fault. Now it's that Labour is screwing thigns up fort everyone, and that's Rudd's fault for not expecting Labour to screw things up for everyone? Wow. He just can't win, huh?


The big difference for me is that Howard sold us to the USA for use in a bullshit war, and Rudd didn't. Maybe Rudd will do the same over coming years. I certanily hope not. If he does, I'll be as opposed to Rudd as I was to Howard.

Indeed, ultimately physical force, or the threat of using it, is the deciding issue. However, ten who speak remain louder than ten thousand who remain silent.

A loud nothing is still nothing. You can knock over all the pans in the kitchen but that doesn't mean you're any closer to an omelette.

As I said, history gives us many examples: http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/histnonviol.html

Depends where they stand.

Ten screaming their lungs out on the internet is a drop in the ocean. One silent man with a banner sitting inside the bedroom of the president/democratic ruler/monarch is going to make a difference.

I'm not seeing the sea of 0s listed, only the islands if 1s.
Anyone have a list of failed non-violent struggles? Wait... no one cares about the 0s. No one wants to hear about the thousands of 0s that couldn't get past the wall, they only want to hear the story of the 1 that got past it. One side wants to copy that one, the other wants to improve the wall.

Also, keep in mind, if you hear a story, and you think "oh, we're learning from our mistakes." and think we're hearing a story about a 0, you're in fact hearing a story about a 1.

Example:
Titanic: 0 | Iceburg: 1
Hindenburg: 0 | Hydrogen: 1

People often do have trouble arguing with my logic.


People want to wallow in ignorance and drudgery. Give the people cake and circuses and they don't care beyond that. I can count the number of people in my life who have genuinely been willing to concede that their perspective was wrong on my fingers. And the ratio never grows. There are always a minuscule number of people who will seek to learn and know and a majority who won't.

Letting people vote doesn't change that at all. It just changes how people are ignorant. Most people barrack for their political party like a sports team.


I always forget that I have to actually tell people I'm okay with killing.

But even if you are opposed to unjust killing, you are suggesting a path with more blood. Australian troops are good at peacekeeping because that's what we train them for and it's what they've been doing for years. We also provide some of the best scouts through our SAS.

Now, Iraqi people are going to die. It's not a question of they will if we're there and won't if we're not; they will. They die more often when American troops are manning the checkpoints because they are trained for combat and not occupation. So the American troops are far more likely to react with lethal force to perceived threats, and they're more likely to perceive threats. Since so many more people are being killed, the Iraqi citizens are even angrier and they are more likely to become violent against their conquerors. So now the number of Iraqi people dying has gone up, as has the number of American soldiers (most of whom aren't guilty of anything).


The very idea of a military is to kill other people.

And it's not new for us to be involved in other peoples' wars. We spent years in East Timor fighting a tiny civil war that had nothing to do with us. You think that there's no blood on our hands from that? Innocent and guilty make no difference. Every single Australian soldier who has been in Iraq is now guilty of invading a foreign country without provocation.

People die all the time. They die from action, they die from inaction. We intervened in East Timor and killed a few people and kept many more from dying. We don't interfere in Darfur because there's no reason for us to do so and a genocide rampages unchecked. Of course, the only way to stop that genocide would likely include demolishing the other side of the equation. There's always people dying from every single decision to involve or abstain from a conflict.

Unless you can justify such selective differences on moral terms, you don't have a vaguely compelling point.


It's what humans do. Pan narrans. Storytelling ape. What's more, mostly we only tell stories of our victories and superiority.

Look at the Dead Poets Society, a fascinating look at pointless rebellion and the price of rebelling but at the end we have the heartwarming moment where they all stand on their desk and salute their ex-teacher with, "O captain, my captain!"

In reality, the heartwarming moment is an awkward few minutes while all the students try not to meet the eyes of the man they betrayed out of fear. But people want the happy ending, especially in our culture.

That was only some of the more notable non-violent struggles. Simple public opinion without being so showy obviously changes things far more often. More examples include public petitions (eg 1891 Women's Suffrage Petition), laws introduced by public lobbies, politicians changing policies due to public backlash, union protests over work conditions and such (indeed, the entire union movement is the result of people speaking up against the unfair practices of the pre-union days).

So, you know. Women voting. Labour unions and safe working conditions. Laws. Just a few small things you probably never noticed. All the result of people speaking up.

And all notable exceptions to the rule, which I believe was his point.

It is possible to get hit by lightning. Some people get hit by lightning a number of times in their life. It is not, however, very likely at all that you will get hit by lightning even once in your whole life. You can run outside in thunderstorms waving a giant metal rod and it's still not very likely that you'll get hit.

What you are advocating is the equivalent of getting hit by lightning. It's incredibly unlikely no matter what you do. If you want to get hit by lightning (bring about political change) there are things you can do to increase your chances - nobody here is denying that. I'm just saying that you've been looking down your nose at the people who don't think the marginally increased chance of getting struck is worth the effort. After all, in the end you're still chasing down lightning. When you have a lot of people interested in being struck by lightning like you, the chances as a group go up but for something like my personal politics, I'd be out there in a field on my own. I'd rather piss my life away doing something I enjoy rather than waste it failing to get changes to help others.

People want to wallow in ignorance and drudgery. Give the people cake and circuses and they don't care beyond that. I can count the number of people in my life who have genuinely been willing to concede that their perspective was wrong on my fingers. And the ratio never grows. There are always a minuscule number of people who will seek to learn and know and a majority who won't.

Do you count yourself on those fingers? If so, why? If your reason is that you believe you're smarter than them, right where they are wrong, how are you any different to them?

But I agree, most folks are content to be beasts of burden. That's one of the reasons why I advocate true democracy. it may force people to grow beyond that, to seriously learn about the world around them and their place in it, and to take responsibility for their society.

Again we see this fundamental difference between your perspective and mine. Yours is all about wallowing in crap, and criticising everyone for wallowing in crap, and criticising everyone who doesn't want to wallow in crap. Mine is about taking steps to rise out of that crap.


Letting people vote doesn't change that at all. It just changes how people are ignorant. Most people barrack for their political party like a sports team.

Most people do indeed vote like it's a team sport. Or they vote for the incumbent regardless of policies. However, if they actually had to face the consequences of their own decisions in running the nation, there's the chance they'd learn through trial and error. Again, that's far better than wallowing in crap.


I always forget that I have to actually tell people I'm okay with killing.


That's ok, killing is entirely natural.


But even if you are opposed to unjust killing, you are suggesting a path with more blood. Australian troops are good at peacekeeping because that's what we train them for and it's what they've been doing for years. We also provide some of the best scouts through our SAS.


Well, I was navy. My father, grandfather, several uncles, and two cousins (until very recently), were army. One uncle was air force. In the navy I trained with an SAS trainer and one of the Clearance Divers, and was housed next door to the SAS at HMAS Sterling in Western Australia. We weren't trained specifically for peacekeeping (ie. policing) duties.


Now, Iraqi people are going to die. It's not a question of they will if we're there and won't if we're not; they will.


They weren't before we invaded. Note that the crap in the press about millions of Iraqis slaughtered by Saddam Hussein was bollocks, and Tony Blair admitted that later on.


They die more often when American troops are manning the checkpoints because they are trained for combat and not occupation.


No, the yanks shoot people more at checkpoints because they just aren't trained very well. Certainly their training is better than in every third world nation, and better than in many developed nations, but it's not as good as it could be.


So the American troops are far more likely to react with lethal force to perceived threats, and they're more likely to perceive threats. Since so many more people are being killed, the Iraqi citizens are even angrier and they are more likely to become violent against their conquerors. So now the number of Iraqi people dying has gone up, as has the number of American soldiers (most of whom aren't guilty of anything).

Agreed.


The very idea of a military is to kill other people.

No, it's not simply to kill people. It depends on the military. Some have been intended to kill for the rulers and expand the realm. Some have been intended primarily for defending the realm. Some have been specifically intended as mercenaries. Some have been specifically intended as roaming hordes with no specific sovereignty-related goals in mind. Always, there is a purpose involved, rather than simply killing. That's why our military is called the Australian Defence Force.

Actually it had a lot to do with us. Firstly because we started it, back when we helped Indonesia take over in 1979. The early stages, including disruption of East Timor society and stirring civil unrest, were headed by the CIA and Australian intelligence agents. We also gave Indonesia some helicopters. Whitlam also encouraged the invasion through political channels. We also helped cover up some of the nasty things Indonesia did there. Secondly, we went back in with INTERFET, we did it because of a deal we made which would give Australia 10% of East Timor's oil and gas profits for the next 25 years.


I agree.

That is not an argument for or against anything.


Again, not an argument against morality being part of the purpose of a military force. If anything, it's an argument for changing our system so the people have control of the military, rather than our corrupt politicians.

It's been done already, centuries ago: http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm


Like Anzac Day?


Well, I try not to base my picture of the world on Hollywood fairytales.

Probably not. I invite people to question my logic and if they can find flaw in it, I'll amend it but I don't often consider that my basic assumptions are wrong. I've examined them and they seem sound. A couple of times I've been led to question things based on the reasoning of others - Kant was probably the best of them - but overall, not really.


You assume there's something other than crap.

Plus, I don't really accept your reasoning. Strong people are born of troubled lives - when bad things happen to people they either get crushed or they get harder. Which seems wonderful for the strong ones except the only reason you need strength is to endure the trouble. What kind of sick, self-justifying system is that? Some people, when forced to take responsibility, become a more reasonable, mature and enlightened person. The only reason to be a person like that is to deal with responsibility. We see the exact same type of self-justifying circle.

I criticise everyone, this is true. I question everything, usually in a very condescending manner. I don't do this out of a sense of superiority - I don't judge you because I think you're lesser than me, I judge you because you are there. Of the two of us, you are championing the more condescending perspective. In your system, there are a lot of people who are unquestioningly inferior beings. Not just less skilled, or less intelligent. Less valuable.


I vote for the incumbent because I know that the person isn't in charge of the Party, and it's the Party who's behind all the major decisions. Neither Party is especially good but both are childishly vindictive quite often. I vote for the incumbent because stability is more important than a futile search for a good politician, since neither Party will put somebody up as their figurehead if they're not going to play ball. So rather than swap everything around all the time for no real gain, I'd rather a party have time to actually focus on long-term developments for the betterment of our nation.

After all, if they know there's a good chance they'll be in power for a long time then they'll work to our benefit because that is to their benefit.


America invaded them. At what point were there going to be no casualties? People were going to die. Nothing we said or did would have changed America's decisions. And even though you agree that leaving the Americans alone means more people die, you still feel you have a moral high ground? Really? Wasn't your big moral point that it was unacceptable that people were dying?


And some guns are made to hunt kangaroos and some guns are made to kill infidels and some guns are made to scare off trespassers.

It doesn't matter what you use them for, their purpose is killing. They defend our borders. How? By killing attackers. Find me a military whose objective isn't to kill people. The fact that some militaries are more or less active at killing people doesn't change what they are and it doesn't change what they do.


It is in this context. Your morality claim was based on our actions causing people to die. By that logic, we should always seek to stop people dying which means it's equally or perhaps more wrong that we've never attempted to stop most of the dying in the world.


Wait, you agree that most people are easily swayed morons and you want them to be in control of the military? There's a good idea! Because every other bigot I know thinks we should just nuke the entirety of eastern Asia. Theirs is an opinion we should consider.

You need to make up your mind. You want politicians to be worse than ordinary people but they're not. They are ordinary people. Most people, in a position of power, are corrupt. It isn't that power corrupts - power magnifies.


Yeah, because no Australian takes pride in being related to Anzacs.

Look at all of the movies about Bonny and Clyde that don't include their last stand. We love a last stand, especially a brave one against futile odds. Being a martyr is almost as good as being the underdog and winning, sometimes better. No, the entire cultural obsession with Anzacs is really a solemn reflection about the futility of war. It's why we have a parade, every year. Nothing says solemn like a parade.


Not Hollywood, human. And of course you do. Everybody does. It's how our species learns and it's how we think. I used a Hollywood example because it's easier to illustrate, seeing as it's pure storytelling and we all agree. We tell our children a series of successively more complicated lies to help then grasp what is true - and even then, it's phrased in the context of a story. We anthropomorphise everything because it's part of what we are as a species.

You've done it in this thread. You can smash the universe into all its component parts and you won't find any morality. It's a story. A lie we tell each other and agree to believe in. Like justice and mercy and money. It's not that it's not real - it's just imaginary.

Probably not. I invite people to question my logic and if they can find flaw in it, I'll amend it but I don't often consider that my basic assumptions are wrong. I've examined them and they seem sound. A couple of times I've been led to question things based on the reasoning of others - Kant was probably the best of them - but overall, not really.


You might find that everyone else thinks along the same lines. To them, their version of reality is sound and consistent.


You assume there's something other than crap.

If I look at how crappy something is, and can see a viable and superior alternative, yes, there are superior options.


Strong people are born of troubled lives - when bad things happen to people they either get crushed or they get harder.

Unless there's a genetic/hereditary component to being a strong person.


Which seems wonderful for the strong ones except the only reason you need strength is to endure the trouble.

And beat the competition.


What kind of sick, self-justifying system is that?

What's sick about a meritocracy?


Some people, when forced to take responsibility, become a more reasonable, mature and enlightened person.

Some do indeed.


The only reason to be a person like that is to deal with responsibility.

Now that's a silly assumption, based on nothing. Some folks strive to become more enlightened, mature, and reasonable, without taking on worldly responsibilities. Indeed for many folks it is important to divest themselves of worldly obligations while seeking to become those things.


We see the exact same type of self-justifying circle.

First: no, for the reason above. Second: even if it was self-justifying, that wouldn't actually make it wrong or bad in any way. Indeed, it would make it a self-motivating path to improvement.


I criticise everyone, this is true. I question everything, usually in a very condescending manner. I don't do this out of a sense of superiority - I don't judge you because I think you're lesser than me, I judge you because you are there.

We're Homo Sapiens. We're supposed to judge.


Of the two of us, you are championing the more condescending perspective. In your system, there are a lot of people who are unquestioningly inferior beings. Not just less skilled, or less intelligent. Less valuable.

Almost right. Not less valuable, but certainly failing to live up to their potential.


I vote for the incumbent because I know that the person isn't in charge of the Party, and it's the Party who's behind all the major decisions.

I believe the major decisions originate from the more potent lobby groups, from foreign nations, and from powerful corporations and other financial factors. The political party goons are nothing more than bureaucrats implementing policies and putting on a dog and pony show for the people.


I vote for the incumbent because stability is more important than a futile search for a good politician, since neither Party will put somebody up as their figurehead if they're not going to play ball.

What loss of stability has ever happened as a result of a federal election? If Howard got us into a bullshit war, and Rudd didn't, and Rudd has replaced Howard, how is the process futile?


So rather than swap everything around all the time for no real gain, I'd rather a party have time to actually focus on long-term developments for the betterment of our nation. After all, if they know there's a good chance they'll be in power for a long time then they'll work to our benefit because that is to their benefit.

Are you suggesting now that our rulign political parties have been involved in an agenda of long-term improvement of the nation? That seems at odds with some of your previous statements.


America invaded them. At what point were there going to be no casualties?

There were going to be no casualties if there was no conflict. Simple. Conflict -> casualties.


Nothing we said or did would have changed America's decisions.

Being powerless to prevent a crime does not mean we should participate. At the moment I have no power to prevent the mass rapes going on in the Congo, but I have no intention of joining in.


And even though you agree that leaving the Americans alone means more people die, you still feel you have a moral high ground? Really? Wasn't your big moral point that it was unacceptable that people were dying?

Don't go making silly assertions about my beliefs based on imaginary stuff.


It doesn't matter what you use them for, their purpose is killing. They defend our borders. How? By killing attackers. Find me a military whose objective isn't to kill people. The fact that some militaries are more or less active at killing people doesn't change what they are and it doesn't change what they do.

No. The purpose can be any of the things I mentioned earlier, or even other things I haven't mentioned. Killing is one means by which they achieve such purposes. If a military force can achieve some objective (eg. gaining a piece of ground, securing a border crossing or some valuable resource, expanding borders), does it make a difference to the force or its commanders if they kill people in doing so? Granted in some cases it does, such as when the policy of those behind the action involvs specifically the desire to kill people. But generally the purpose is political and/or financial. Killing is a means to an end.


It is in this context. Your morality claim was based on our actions causing people to die. By that logic, we should always seek to stop people dying which means it's equally or perhaps more wrong that we've never attempted to stop most of the dying in the world.

No, that still doesn't work. First you said people die from action or inaction. Great. If it's equal on both sides, it's negated and removed as irrelevant. But then you've introduced another argument about failing to prevent killing going on in the world. That second argument has no bearing on the previous statement. Yes, it sucks that we haven't been able to stop all the unjust killing goin on. But "people die from action or inaction" has no bearing on that suckiness. Nor does that crappy inability to end all that injustice in any way justify totally unprovoked invasions of nations that never did us wrong.


Wait, you agree that most people are easily swayed morons and you want them to be in control of the military? There's a good idea! Because every other bigot I know thinks we should just nuke the entirety of eastern Asia. Theirs is an opinion we should consider. You need to make up your mind. You want politicians to be worse than ordinary people but they're not. They are ordinary people. Most people, in a position of power, are corrupt. It isn't that power corrupts - power magnifies.

However, if they actually had to face the consequences of their own decisions in running the nation, there's the chance they'd learn through trial and error. Again, that's far better than wallowing in crap.

That, and we already have morons controlling it all. At least if the people controlled it all, the majority would actually be responsible, rather than the majority paying for the mistakes of just a few morons.


Yeah, because no Australian takes pride in being related to Anzacs. Look at all of the movies about Bonny and Clyde that don't include their last stand. We love a last stand, especially a brave one against futile odds. Being a martyr is almost as good as being the underdog and winning, sometimes better. No, the entire cultural obsession with Anzacs is really a solemn reflection about the futility of war. It's why we have a parade, every year. Nothing says solemn like a parade.

Hey, you said we only yap about the victories. It's just not true.


Not Hollywood, human.

It's just a movie. Really not that big a deal.


And of course you do. Everybody does. It's how our species learns and it's how we think.

You shouldn't assume some sort of similarity or connection.


We tell our children a series of successively more complicated lies to help then grasp what is true - and even then, it's phrased in the context of a story. We anthropomorphise everything because it's part of what we are as a species.

You're talking about your own private hypotheses now, rather than reality.


You've done it in this thread.

I can see why you might think that, but no.


You can smash the universe into all its component parts and you won't find any morality. It's a story. A lie we tell each other and agree to believe in. Like justice and mercy and money. It's not that it's not real - it's just imaginary.

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/sociobiology/
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch8/chap8.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6278907.stm

Just out of interest to the discussion, i heard you mentioning womens rights.

It makes me giggle that now in england the female constituate and women in general are lobbying agaisnt those rights, heh, turns out that now that we live in an equal society the laws arent needed, and as such the current laws are more restrictive than no laws. *giggle*

Out of interest, did either of you consider re-reading your arguments at the start of this discussion? Its interesting to see how people spin sometimes

Some really valid points put across though.

But yes, free speech and all that. Back to your topic.
*lurks*

Which would be why I didn't count myself on those fingers. I don't particularly consider an open mind a good thing, although I'm not entirely decided on that.


There are genetic components to aptitude in sport. Having those components does not mean you are good at sport - it means you have a greater potential at the sport. There likely is a genetic component to sport but unless you're a genetic determinist, it doesn't change my point. If you are a determinist - of any sort, really - you should save yourself the effort of arguing with people.


Because peoples' abilities are outside of their control. It's no fairer a system than, say, feudalism. There's some mobility in both societies (through effort and training for the one and military service in the other) but your position is determined solely by an accident of birth. For example, I am an intelligent person but I have no musical talent. I could train constantly and greatly improve my musical ability but there will likely be people who, through no effort at all, are better than I am. A meritocracy rewards them for something they had no control over.

It's not sick. It's just exactly the same as all the rest.

Which is about as useful and meaningful as masturbation. Pleasing to yourself and worthless to anybody else.


Having joined in to a war, we are directly responsible for the deaths caused by our withdrawal. Your argument is similar to being a trained medic who, rather than help at a road crash, drives on by because he didn't cause the collision.

It's not necessarily an unreasonable view but it seems as though selective morality is in place.


And the military is a violent tool which is prevalent in most, if not all, modern cultures due to its effectiveness (via killing) at achieving ends. Much like guns and explosives and all the other panoply of war. The only time a military can accomplish any goal without violence is through the threat of violence and the only type of credible threat is one that can be carried through. You don't send the military to debate people, you don't send them to picket people, they don't go on hunger strikes.

They're there to kill people, or at the very least threaten to do so. If they won't actually fulfill the threat of violence then there is no threat and you've payed a bunch of people for nothing. Just like a chair is made to sit in. You can leave it empty or use it as a makeshift table but it was made to seat people.


What are you basing that on? We've both agreed that the majority of people are incompetent idiots, which is a major flaw in democracy. We both seem to agree that people don't seem necessarily more intelligent or mature due to democracy (although we disagree on whether that is plausible). You need to be more consistent in your evaluation of people. They can't all be idiots who would suddenly be responsible for no reason.

And Australia considers the Anzacs triumphant. They didn't win they war but they were more brave, more sacrificing than anybody else. They're not honoured because they lost, they're honoured because in that loss we perceive some more meaningful victory. Troops who were involved in Vietnaam and Iraq are not accorded a fraction of the respect as those involved in earlier wars because we do not perceive a victory in their war.


A movie that illustrated my point. The particular movie is irrelevant, there are thousands upon thousands of appropriate movies and stories that could fill the niche. That was just the one that came to mind.


From the man who brought morality into the discussion.

And it's not my private hypothesis. It's not a widely held one but I don't think it's very old. Pick up any of the Science of the Discworld books (the second one in particular) for an entertaining read that contains the idea.


I'm sorry, I thought that imaginary meant that it was all in your head.

If brain activity is proof of objective reality then my schizophrenic mother is proof of God, Satan and at least fourteen unnamed demons. If we gather up all of the schizophrenics, imagine the wonders we'd find were real!

Sarcasm aside, the evolution angle doesn't prove me wrong at all. It does suggest that animals that imagined these things existed would have an advantage over animals that couldn't imagine them. This seems to go hand in hand with human ingenuity giving us such a delightful dominance. It is not proof that those things are real in an objective sense. At most, they prove that they can be real on a subjective level but if you want to argue this angle then I really will be retreating into private hypothesis.


I don't think I'm ever involved in an argument that doesn't spiral out of control.

People just find me objectionable, I guess.

I was going to make an analogy using cake, but your chair one works too.

heh, sacramouche you appear to use pretty stock arguments so far.

Yeah, laws spawned and dictated by lobby groups can be whacky.

Interesting article: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an...icle2523264.ece

Which would be why I didn't count myself on those fingers. I don't particularly consider an open mind a good thing, although I'm not entirely decided on that.

Well, personally I believe an open mind is a good thing. Unfortunately, some people confuse having an open mind with blindly accepting just about everything.


There are genetic components to aptitude in sport. Having those components does not mean you are good at sport - it means you have a greater potential at the sport. There likely is a genetic component to sport but unless you're a genetic determinist, it doesn't change my point. If you are a determinist - of any sort, really - you should save yourself the effort of arguing with people.

As with sport, being a strong person may involve both good breeding and taking the appropriate course in life.


Because peoples' abilities are outside of their control. It's no fairer a system than, say, feudalism.

Whether it's fair or not is another discussion entirely. I wasn't talking about fairness.


There's some mobility in both societies (through effort and training for the one and military service in the other)

There were other ways of changing status in feudal societies. For example, serfs could in many places and times purchas their freedom.


but your position is determined solely by an accident of birth. For example, I am an intelligent person but I have no musical talent. I could train constantly and greatly improve my musical ability but there will likely be people who, through no effort at all, are better than I am. A meritocracy rewards them for something they had no control over.

Like many today, you seem to place a premium on whether we control certain factors or not, for no particular reason. If someone is born with a natural talent for leadership and organisation, why should they not lead and organise? Why is it more appropriate to place such duties in the hands of others?


It's not sick. It's just exactly the same as all the rest.

Ok. It was sick earlier.


Which is about as useful and meaningful as masturbation. Pleasing to yourself and worthless to anybody else.

So the Dalai Lama is a useless wanker?


Having joined in to a war, we are directly responsible for the deaths caused by our withdrawal. Your argument is similar to being a trained medic who, rather than help at a road crash, drives on by because he didn't cause the collision. It's not necessarily an unreasonable view but it seems as though selective morality is in place.

"Having joined..." Yes, and I argued against that very thing. Not what came later.


And the military is a violent tool which is prevalent in most, if not all, modern cultures due to its effectiveness (via killing) at achieving ends. Much like guns and explosives and all the other panoply of war. The only time a military can accomplish any goal without violence is through the threat of violence and the only type of credible threat is one that can be carried through. You don't send the military to debate people, you don't send them to picket people, they don't go on hunger strikes. They're there to kill people, or at the very least threaten to do so.

Indeed, they are there to apply force when directed by their controllers. But again, that does not automatically mean killing. It is often, as you mentioned, merely to apply a threatening presence.

Of course, you also said they are specifically for peacekeeping...


They can't all be idiots who would suddenly be responsible for no reason.

Trial and error due to being in charge of things, as I said earlier.


And Australia considers the Anzacs triumphant.

No, we don't. We weren't triumphant. We got our arses handed to us.


A movie that illustrated my point. The particular movie is irrelevant, there are thousands upon thousands of appropriate movies and stories that could fill the niche. That was just the one that came to mind.

Well, I can't argue against that. You've made some point based on fiction, and reiterated that it illustrates your point. Ok. That works for you.


From the man who brought morality into the discussion.

I'm not sure how that sentence works as a response to what I posted.


And it's not my private hypothesis. It's not a widely held one but I don't think it's very old.

Well, it's certainly not how I was raised, and not how I plan on raising kids either.


Pick up any of the Science of the Discworld books (the second one in particular) for an entertaining read that contains the idea.

More fiction? Comedy fiction? As evidence of how humans raise kids?


If brain activity is proof of objective reality then my schizophrenic mother is proof of God, Satan and at least fourteen unnamed demons.

That made no sense whatsoever. The fact is, our behaviour and psychology is the result of our evolution, although the extent of it is of course debatable. Shizophrenia is the result of faulty mental plumbing. Although some these days suggest a certain parasite may be responsible.


Sarcasm aside, the evolution angle doesn't prove me wrong at all. It does suggest that animals that imagined these things existed would have an advantage over animals that couldn't imagine them. This seems to go hand in hand with human ingenuity giving us such a delightful dominance. It is not proof that those things are real in an objective sense. At most, they prove that they can be real on a subjective level but if you want to argue this angle then I really will be retreating into private hypothesis.

It's not about imaginary stuff. The point of sociobiology is that our behaviours and social interactions are the result of real evolutionary pressures.

I'm not sure if that's supposed to prove, disprove, or support anything. But it doesn't really say much.

Heh it says all it needs to, its not about your discussion, its an aside. A call, if you will, to see if you're really thinking about what you're saying, properly reasoning out your arguments.

Also its possibley a hint that your arguing agaisnt opinions, which can never be wrong.

Because it's no different than assigning blame or obligations to people based on factors they can't control. If all people with green eyes have to be slaves to all people without green eyes, you probably see a marked improvement in the lives of people in general. Slavery usually is kind to slave owners. Or perhaps people should be punished for the crimes of their parents. Or rewarded for the good deeds of their parents.

There is a deep question of justice involved. If we take into account natural ability as a sole (or even just a major) component for a person's duties and rewards then you are indirectly punishing anybody born without major abilities. Imagine Bob. Bob is an okay guy. Not especially great at anything, not terrible at anything. He lives a quiet life, accomplishes little. In a meritocracy, he is a second class citizen - at best - based on something he didn't do. Something he has no control over.

The reason talented or gifted people champion a meritocracy is because they believe that they will have an agreeable position in such a society.


It's a sick cycle of self-justification. The particular cycle isn't more or less sick than the others.

It appeals to values that only mean something if you accept the justification. It's the same as a theist appealing to their faith as proof of their god. It's empty unless you already agree with it, but if you already agree with it you're perfectly and completely justified.


I'm sure you did. However, those arguments didn't work and we were involved in the war.

Now, you wipe your hands of all responsibility because it is convenient and it has nothing to do with morality. As much as you might not have liked it, we were involved in that war. You acknowledge that our withdrawal will likely cause more deaths but your stated reason for wanting to leave was to not kill people. How is this consistent?


Nothing more peaceful than a dead person.

It's a more palatable way of phrasing it than martial law.


Then according to your desired meritocratic ends, we should scorn such failures.

But I don't think you would claim that. No, they're a valuable lesson and in that they're a victory. A morality tale, a testament to our bravery. There's more than one way to be triumphant and the most common way to win through "failure" is as a martyr. I've heard, on more than one occasion, that the Anzacs died for our freedom. That's martyrdom. Never mind they died on the beaches of Gallipoli in an invasion that wasn't likely to work because there simply weren't enough troops. They died for our freedom.

They are heralded as heroes in a way Vietnam or Iraq vets aren't. They died in a Righteous war, as opposed to an unpopular one. If you really think that they aren't held in special reverence you're either very naive or being obstinate to no point. The Anzacs died en masse but our side won the war. They didn't fail because Australia remained free. There was a triumph there.


Pretty much. Any worthwhile activities any of the Dalai Lamas have been involved in hasn't been their efforts to detach from the world, it's been from their engaging with it.

I can't really see where that question was going. You seem to be relatively sharp. I'm obviously a prick. Did you really think I would respect the Dalai Lama?


A point about the shape of stories. The Dead Poet's Society is not a happy story. One of the kids dies, the rest betray their teacher. The point I was making was that even in an unpleasant story we look for a victory, a triumphant note - and that our love of stories doesn't conform to reality. It was a conversational aside.

Of course, you've appealed to a morality I clearly don't share that you haven't explained as your point on certain issues.


You derided me for referring to personal hypotheses but you're making arguments based on morality. I'm pretty sure your arguments aren't based on Hobbesian morality, or Kantian morality, or Utilitarian morality. Why, it seems that the morality you're referring to is your own personal morality. What you think is right.

Yes, I can see how it's so very different from what I was doing.


Right, so when your kid asks where babies come from you're going to explain adult sexual relationships are you? Including, I trust, the complex web of emotions, obligations, social pressures and major morality issues involved with sex - protected and otherwise - as well as the obligations of a relationship (emphasising the difference between a sexual relationship and a familial or platonic relationship). Fetishes, accidental pregnancies, trap pregnancies (where a girl - or more rarely, a guy - seek to get pregnant to keep the other person in the relationship), abortions. In small enough words for a five year old to understand, too.

Or is it going to be something closer to, "When a mummy and a daddy love each other very much..."

Because if you can explain to me how the second path isn't a lie I'd be grateful. When you tell anything less than the whole truth you are lying by omission. We lie to our children because they aren't able to comprehend the truth. We tell them successively larger lies to bring them closer and closer to the truth. We do it in schools, too. I before E except after C. Every sentence needs a noun and a verb. Most of the time, even mathematics teachers lie (about negative values, variables, fractions) until the kids have learned enough of the simpler things to grasp the more complex thoughts.

As a proposed hypothesis to how evolutionary pressures and human uniqueness is related to our love of stories and its use as a unifying and didactic tool. The use of metaphors, fables and allegories is how we teach children morality. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a lesson on honesty. The Prodigal Son a lesson of forgiveness. The Good Samaritan a lesson of mercy.

And our obsession with stories can't be denied. All our research into the past - be it scientific or not - is in a search for some platform that we can use for the Beginning. Beginnings only have relevance in stories. It doesn't matter how the universe came into being, we're perfectly capable of establishing its rules and order looking at the way it behaves.

But still. In the Beginning there was a Bang. Or there was the Word. And at the End there will be Entropy. Or a Crunch. Or the Last Standing, the day of Judgment.


And schizophrenic delusions are the result of real psychological phenomena. That doesn't mean the voices they hear are real. It just means they are hearing voices.

There's no contradiction between my claim that all of those things (love, mercy, justice) are imaginary and sociobiology that says there's an evolutionary advantage to believing in those things. There might be an evolutionary advantage to believing in God - that doesn't mean there is one. It just means that having a big enough imagination to think so is an advantage. Our brain is full of false patterns. The stars are random. Almost every culture has seen and mapped out patterns in the stars - often believing that those patterns can be measured and used to predict the future. Pattern recognition is an incredibly useful evolutionary trait as it lets you spot things that don't meet the pattern quickly - the swish of a tiger's tail in the tall grass, a missing branch on a nearby tree. That doesn't mean that all the patterns we see are real. We're quite good at imposing fictional patterns on random events.

It's perfectly plausible that there's an evolutionary advantage to believe in things that aren't real.


Opinions are not inviolate. Reality is not subjective. I can have the opinion that gravity doesn't work on small children. I'd be wrong if I did. Just because people won't accept their opinions are wrong doesn't mean they're right.

The only difficulty is in measuring opinions that only connect to reality tangentially, if at all. That doesn't mean they're not wrong, it just means it's difficult to prove.

Of course. If you wish to suggest otherwise, feel free to show why.


No. Opinions can indeed be wrong. For example, Verbose had the opinion that Australia's military is trained primarily for peacekeeping duties. That is wrong. Some creationists have the opinion that the universe is six thousand or so years old. That is also wrong.

Because it's no different than assigning blame or obligations to people based on factors they can't control. If all people with green eyes have to be slaves to all people without green eyes, you probably see a marked improvement in the lives of people in general. Slavery usually is kind to slave owners. Or perhaps people should be punished for the crimes of their parents. Or rewarded for the good deeds of their parents.

If someone is blind, they shouldn't be working as a surgeon. Nor should they be driving a bus full of people. If someone is a paranoid schizophrenic, they shouldn't be pistol-packing cops. If someone is a congenital moron, they shouldn't be controlling the world's second largest arsenal of nuclear missiles.

On the other hand, some folks have the politically correct opinion that all those things should be allowed because everyone is the same, has the same capabilities, et cetera.

But no. People being suited to different things due to natural talents is not the same as blaming people for things without evidence.


There is a deep question of justice involved. If we take into account natural ability as a sole (or even just a major) component for a person's duties and rewards then you are indirectly punishing anybody born without major abilities.

You've got a job requiring the best juggler (it's an analogy, but consider that juggling is some important role in the society). Ninety-nine people are average in all ways, including juggling ability. One person is a natural genius juggler, way better than the rest. If the "everyone must be the same" advocates have their way, the best juggler may have a 1% chance of getting that job. He may even be denied the job specifically because those folks demand that someone of average or below average quality gets the job. That's punishing the best for being the best. It also indirectly punishes the society because they have such a small chance of having the best juggler.

Nobody is punished if the job goes to the person most capable.


The reason talented or gifted people champion a meritocracy is because they believe that they will have an agreeable position in such a society.

Obviously. That's because they're the talented and gifted people. That's the entire point of a meritocracy.


It's a sick cycle of self-justification. The particular cycle isn't more or less sick than the others.

Ok, first it was sick. Then it wasn't sick. Now it's sick again, but now everything else is sick too so it's the same as the rest.


It appeals to values that only mean something if you accept the justification. It's the same as a theist appealing to their faith as proof of their god. It's empty unless you already agree with it, but if you already agree with it you're perfectly and completely justified.

The whole self-justifying thing has been answered. And no, it doesn't equate to faith.


However, those arguments didn't work and we were involved in the war.

You ignoring what was posted and continually focusing on events after invasion rather than the rightness or wrongness of the invasion (as I was discussing) does not equate to "those arguments didn't work". I'm sure you're well aware of that.


Now, you wipe your hands of all responsibility because it is convenient and it has nothing to do with morality.

Why are you making weird accusations or assumptions about me and hand-wiping? What are you talking about now? Is this one of those things where you criticise someone's character in lieu of making rational arguments?


As much as you might not have liked it, we were involved in that war. You acknowledge that our withdrawal will likely cause more deaths but your stated reason for wanting to leave was to not kill people. How is this consistent?

Ah, I see. Simply fabricate stuff and argue agaisnt that. That's called a Straw Man argument. No, I did not make any argument about not wanting AU forces to leave Iraq.


Nothing more peaceful than a dead person.
It's a more palatable way of phrasing it than martial law.

So now Australia's military is being trained for peacekeeping through killing and martial law? Are you sure? It's hard to keep track, as your assertions about this keep changing.


Then according to your desired meritocratic ends, we should scorn such failures.

Please explain the logical leap from meritocracy to scorning defeated soldiers. One does not require the other. Whether victorious or not, if our soldiers are put in harm's way by our government and/or our people, they should be respected.

Maybe just stop making up weird stuff.


No, they're a valuable lesson and in that they're a victory.

Another mighty morphin' power argument. First it was Australia celebrating a victory. Now it's a defeat but it's a victory because it's a cool morality tale.


They died for our freedom.

Not really. Australia was under no threat whatsoever in World War One. We joined the war primarily because England joined the war, and Australia basically still considered itself part of England back then. Indeed, our Prime Minister (Andrew Fisher) openly stated that our reason for joining the war was to demonstrate AU's loyalty to its mother country. Not for right or wrong, not for AU's gain, not for freedom. Just to stand by dear old Mum.


They died in a Righteous war

WTF are you smoking? The war was entirely political on all sides, with no hint of morality anywhere.


If you really think that they aren't held in special reverence you're either very naive or being obstinate to no point.

Another mighty morphin' power argument. Feel free to quote anything I have posted which indicates such a belief. No, sorry. This is an example of trying to argue through righteous indignation. Like that guy on the Starship Troopers movie: "Brain bugs? I don't think so!" People (often politicians) try to make such arguments when they wish to associate themselves with whatever the people are expected to respect and revere, and pretend their opponent is somehow against those supposedly noble things. There's some Latin name for such arguments on all those logical fallacy webpages, but I forget what it is.


Pretty much. Any worthwhile activities any of the Dalai Lamas have been involved in hasn't been their efforts to detach from the world, it's been from their engaging with it.

Perhaps you should sit and meditate on the value of people such as the Dalia Lama.

And being in or apart from the world was not the assertion. We were discussing divestment of worldly obligations. I suspect I've stumbled upon yet another mighty morphin' power argument.


Did you really think I would respect the Dalai Lama?

Not really.


A point about the shape of stories. The Dead Poet's Society is not a happy story. One of the kids dies, the rest betray their teacher. The point I was making was that even in an unpleasant story we look for a victory, a triumphant note - and that our love of stories doesn't conform to reality. It was a conversational aside.

You were making assertions about how humans raise kids, and used a movie as an evidence to prove the point. Then the Discworld books.


You derided me for referring to personal hypotheses but you're making arguments based on morality. I'm pretty sure your arguments aren't based on Hobbesian morality, or Kantian morality, or Utilitarian morality. Why, it seems that the morality you're referring to is your own personal morality. What you think is right.

What did the philosophy graduate say to the engineering graduate? "Do you want fries with that?"

Philosophical discussions tend to be abstracted away from facts. I stick to facts. Sociobiology looks at the known biological and evolutionary pressures generating known behavioural patterns.


Right, so when your kid asks where babies come from you're going to explain adult sexual relationships are you? Including, I trust, the complex web of emotions, obligations, social pressures and major morality issues involved with sex - protected and otherwise - as well as the obligations of a relationship (emphasising the difference between a sexual relationship and a familial or platonic relationship). Fetishes, accidental pregnancies, trap pregnancies (where a girl - or more rarely, a guy - seek to get pregnant to keep the other person in the relationship), abortions. In small enough words for a five year old to understand, too.

Sure. It's not that difficult to explain. Kids should learn about breeding, genetics, certain emotions being the product of the mating drive, et cetera. That's why the talk if often called "the birds and the bees". It's a discussion of natural practices.


Or is it going to be something closer to, "When a mummy and a daddy love each other very much..."

I don't plan on raising idiots.


And schizophrenic delusions are the result of real psychological phenomena. That doesn't mean the voices they hear are real. It just means they are hearing voices.

Indeed, faulty mental plumbing has such effects. Which has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the other fields of study, sociobology, evolution, and sociology.

Anyway, this is getting time-consuming, and it's really kind of lame. You're continually changing your arguments when they're shown to be erroneous, and demonstrating that, as above, is just annoying. So we'll have to agree to disagree on whatever it is you wish to argue about. I will stick to shorter and less time-consuming posts.

Then perhaps better trained would be appropriate.


Aside from the irony of you using an analogy - a type of story - to attempt to teach, what you've proposed as a meritocracy is, at best, a guiding principle. Much like communism's guiding principle being all people working in harmony for the good of the whole. Or fascism's principle of a single person (or group of persons) directing people to their own best interests. Or democracy's principle of every person getting an equal say. Or capitalism's principle being that each person is given a wage for labour.

The wonderful thing about guiding principles is that they're very hard to pin down. After all, the best person could be forced to do the job. Or the best person who wouldn't object too much. Or the best person of those who apply. And it says nothing to an economic scale, because if the harder jobs (which unerringly go to the talented) get a higher wage then you're actively creating a very real class distinction that means anybody born without a suitable genetic gift is relegated to being a second or third class citizen. Or all jobs could have equal wage which would remove incentive to do difficult or undesirable jobs.

Or it could be none of these things. Of course, you haven't established anything so you don't have to be victim of any of the problems. It's so much easier to have political views when you don't have people messing them up.


Meritocratic thinking rewards success. It's the big benefit. It's also the harshest judge. Much like capitalism rewards profit and wealth, when you fail to meet the benchmark for approval you get disapproved of.

At the very most, respect for soldiers - living or dead - should be the same as anybody else who completed their job, or in the case of Gallipoli, failed to complete their job. Our military is not compulsory. Our soldiers choose to be so. Presumably, they do so knowingly. If they take pride in a job well done, that's good for them. Meritocracy has no particular room for empty sentimentality because the only consideration is effectiveness.


I believe the word I used was triumph. Gallipoli wasn't a victory, it was a triumph. A valiant struggle, a brave sacrifice. Proof of their mettle. There are dozens of things it could have been but those soldiers were put on a pedestal.


You objected to our troops going to war. Many people did. The leaders elected by those same people ignored those opinions and we went to war. You have also claimed that you approve of the move to withdraw our troops because, and I may be paraphrasing here, you object to the unnecessary killing of any people. After all, you did assert that it was not the negligible Australian losses but rather the other deaths that were intolerable.

You also agreed that, for whatever reason, our troops at least lessened the dying of other people. You further agreed that our withdrawal would result in more deaths than our staying. So I called you hypocrite, or liar. You can't claim to oppose a war because killing anybody is wrong and then support a course of action that leads to more, perhaps many more, deaths. Not consistently.

Of course, you don't say much. I'm just supposed to know which of the nearly endless permutations of any of the fragments of views you reference are the ones you mean.


You suggested that divesting oneself of worldly obligations was a virtue. I claimed that to do so was as useful as masturbation. You presented the Dalai Lama as a figure of respect. If the Dalai Lama completely divested himself of worldly obligations, he would not interact with the world more than was necessary. Therefore, all goods to any society ever done by a Dalai Lama were through worldly obligations. A true ascetic deals with the world of facts, as you so fervently put your faith in, as minimally as possible.

In fact, given your scorn of philosophers, I find it remarkable that you would list any contemplative as a noteworthy figure. After all, all spirituality is heading away from the realm of measurable fact. The suggestion that I meditate on something at all, let alone things not factual, well. I'm surprised you have an opinion on such an ephemeral concept as free speech.


This is just a curiosity question. Have you known many kids?

It's not intended to be derogatory, I'm just wondering if you've spoken to many. They are notoriously dense little creatures.


Even assuming that sociobiology proves morality, and that's not a clear and documented fact as it mostly attempts to explain how less than cut-throat traits could be explained in tandem with evolution, it does nothing to prove that freedom of speech is a good thing. Has nothing to say about freedom of speech at all, really. In fact, the very notion of freedom of speech comes to a question of rights and rights are philosophical things. They're certainly not physical things. They're not facts. Australia doesn't even have a constitution claiming that we have such rights. Oh my, it seems I'm not the only one who can say things on one topic that don't seem consistent with other things.

And through all your mentions of morality, you still haven't actually mentioned what is moral. Killing people, not moral, political cowardice, moral enough. Freedom of speech, very important. Of course, I'm pretty sure the current conventional opinion of science and the relationship of cause and effect means that, barring some unforeseen breakthrough, you need to be a determinist about everything I wonder what motivates you to strike out for social change. Then again, I suppose if you're a fatalist, you don't need to justify any behaviour because you could never do anything but what you do.

Lol guys, think about what your saying. Your disputing the facts in the opinions, not the opinions themselves, if i believe there is no gravity, my belief in that isnt wrong, though the fact that there is no gravity is wrong. It might be a small thing, but you guys missed it. I shall now leave the discussion.

Okay. I believe we'ver reached the end of the line. We're going around in circles and things are starting to get personal.

Lets just call it quits while we're all still in one piece.

G!